| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
17 Feb 2005 09:11:45 AM |
| Object: |
Re: BREAKING NEWS |
"J.Pascal" <julie@pascal.org> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "Michael S. Morris" <msmorris@netdirect.net> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:| Wednesday, the 16th of February, 2005
:|> >:|
:|> >:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> >:| Actually this wasn't hard to show it to be a
:|> >:| myth at all. [snip]
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
:|> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
:|>
:|>
:|> Lame pieces of nonsense, huh?
:|> Gee guy. There isn't anything lame about it nor is it
:|> in any manner lame.
:|
:|I never write anything lame either. Never ever.
:|
:|> >:|
:|> >:|Look, I'm not Christian, though I homeschool my
:|> >:|children and hang out on a newsgroup with many
:|> >:|homeschoolers who are Christian. I have zero vested
:|> >:|interest in the question of whether George Washington
:|> >:|did say "so help me God" or no at the time of the
:|> >:|First Inauguration.
:|>
:|> Good for you. I feel sorry for your children. I say that for a very
:|simple
:|> reason. It appears that you have no interest in valid history. You
:|would
:|> prefer inaccurate or invalid history.
:|
:|How does this follow?
It follows by his opening.
I give what I get. This is what I received from a person who doesn't know
me, has at best a very short general summation of the facts and documented
evidence we have accumulated, and based on his own comments apparently
hasn't a clue just how much this incorrect story is part of the American
consciousness.
I was born at a time when the prime family entertainment was to sit around
the radio at night listening to "The Shadow," "The Lone Ranger,"
"Fibbermcgee and Molly," "Our Miss Brooks," "Amos and Andy," "Jack Benny,"
etc. FDR was in his third term as President and we were maybe half way
through a world war.
I recall being taught in American History in school that George Washington
said "So Help me God" thus setting a precedence that every President has
followed ever since then.
His opening was
:|> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
:|> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
That set the tone and I followed his tone as well.
:| Did he say he prefered to teach
:|"So help me God" and didn't care if it was true or not?
He said it was lame and nonsense.
:|I'm sure he teaches as accurate history as possible, and
:|I have never ever known him to be lax about caring about
:|facts and what is true or not true.
Then I suggest you ask him why he put on a insulting attacking hat and said
the following:
:|> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
:|> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
I suggest you ask him what it was about the original post on this topic
that pushed his *** I have to reply and I have to do so in a insulting,
rude attack the messenger manner. ***
:|I certainly would
:|expect him to be on my case if I was making inaccurate
:|claims about something.
I made no inaccurate claims in my original post or in my follow up post
that he was actually replying to.
You did note that he snipped all of that. There are reasons people snip
things. Ask him why he snipped it.
And just in case you didn't see it here is what he snipped:
"King George John" <KingGeorgeJohn@wmconnect.com> wrote:
:|(That's ASSuming that, indeed, GW didn't. It's very hard to prove a
:|negation. Is there a source who reported at the time the "W" the first,
:|DIDN'T saying anything after the oath?
:|
In this particular case there was a whole bunch of people there
Here is a summation of things
There are no contemporary reports that Washington said "So help me God."
What the evidence shows is the first reports of his uttering those words
appeared in a book that was published in 1854 originally with a revised
edition coming out in 1856.
The information in the book on those particular words is suppose to have
been based on a story told to the author of the book by Washington Irving.
The author of the book wasn't born until 1815. The impression is that
Washington Irving told his troy to the author sometime near the time the
author was working on the book probably in the early 1850s
At any rate the Irving version was that he (Irving) was present at the
inauguration of Washington in 1789, thus seeing and hearing the events he
was telling the events he was telling the author.
The problem is Washington Irving was only a couple weeks past turning 6
years of age at the time of the inauguration and was standing, by his own
admission, about a block away from the second floor balcony where the
inauguration was taking place. In addition, people on the same balcony as
Washington reported no such words being uttered by Washington. newspaper
accounts of the day reported no such words being spoken. Others observers,
while, not on the balcony, were on rooftops just across the street of the
balcony never mentioned any such words being spoken
Every site given pertaining to those words, whenever there is a actual
cite given, which is seldom, cite this book, published in 1854 and again in
1856
No primary contemporary source is ever cited simply because none exist.
The information in that book is as follows:
140
on each side of the way, through which the President, with his attendants,
was conducted to the chamber of the Senate, where the members of the House
of Representatives had a few minutes before assembled, and at the door the
Vice President received him and waited upon him to the chair.
The Vice President then said, "Sir, the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States are ready to attend you to
take the oath required by the Constitution, which will be administered by
the Chancellor of the State of New York."
The President answered, "I am ready to proceed."
The Vice President and the Senators led the way, and, accompanied
by the Chancellor, and followed by the Representatives, and other public
characters present, he then walked to the outside gallery, from which Broad
street and Wall street, each way, were perceived to be filled, as with a
sea of upturned faces, but as silent as if the immense concourse had been
of statues instead of living men.
The spectacle must have been in the highest degree interesting
and serious. In the centre, between two pillars, was seen the commanding
figure of Washington, in a coat, waistcoat, and breeches, of fine dark
brown cloth, and white silk stockings, all of American manufacture, plain
silver buckles in his shoes, his head uncovered, and his hair dressed in
the prevailing fashion of the time. On one side stood the Chancellor, in a
full suit of black cloth, and on the other the Vice President, dressed more
showily, but like the President entirely in American fabrics. Between the
President and the Chancellor was Mr. Otis, Secretary of the Senate, a small
short man, holding an open Bible upon a rich crimson cushion, and
conspicuous in the group were Roger Sherman, General Knox, General St.
Clair, Baron Steuben, and others whose names were equally dear and familiar
to the people.
A gesture of the Chancellor arrested the attention of the im
Page 141
mense assembly, and he pronounced slowly and distinctly the words
of the oath. The Bible was raised, and as the President bowed to
kiss its sacred pages, he said audibly, " I swear," and added, with
fervor, his eyes closed, that his whole soul might be absorbed in
the supplication, "So help me God!"
Then the Chancellor said, "It is done," and, turning to the
multitude, waved his hand, and with a loud voice exclaimed, "Long
live George Washington, President of the United States!"
Immediately the air was filled with acclamations and the roar
of cannon; the President bowed, and again and again the welkin
rung with the plaudits of happy and grateful citizens, who felt that
Heaven had granted all their reasonable petitions, and that the New Era
dreamed of by sages and celebrated by orators and bards was now completely
inaugurated.
"The scene," writes one who was present to his correspondent
in Philadelphia, "was solemn and awful beyond description. It
would seem extraordinary that the administration of an oath, a
ceremony so very common and familiar, should in so great a degree excite
the public curiosity; but the circumstances of the President's election,
the impression of his past services, the concourse of spectators, the
devout fervency with which he repeated the oath, and the reverential manner
in which he bowed down and kissed the sacred volume, all these conspired to
render it one of the most august and interesting spectacles ever
exhibited..... It seemed, from the number of witnesses, to be a solemn
appeal to Heaven and earth at once. In regard to this great and good man I
may perhaps be an enthusiast, but I confess that I was under an awful and
religious persuasion, that the gracious Ruler of the Universe was looking
down at that moment with peculiar complacency on an act which
to a part of his creatures was so very important." Under this impression,
he proceeds to say that when the Chancellor proclaimed
Page 142
Washington President, his sensibility was so excited that he could do no
more than wave his hat with the rest, without the power of joining in the
repeated acclamations which rent the air.
Few persons are now living who witnessed the induction of the
first President of the United States into his office; but walking, not many
months ago, near the middle of a night of unusual beauty, through Broadway
- at that hour scarcely disturbed by any voices or footfalls except our own
- Washington Irving related to Dr. Francis and myself his recollections of
these scenes, with that graceful conversational eloquence of which he is
one of the greatest of living masters. He had watched the procession till
the President entered Federal Hall, and from the corner of New street and
Wall street had observed the subsequent proceedings in the balcony.
==========================================================
Now there is a map in the file section of this yahoo group
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
that shows NYC as it looked in 1789, it's a section that has been isolated
and can be enlarged in place there. it shows Federal Hall (5) and also
shows the corner of Wall street and New Street where a just barely 6 year
old Washington Irving said he was standing
Two things come to mind real quick (1) the angle for seeing anything is
impossible and (2) its a block away and even if the crowd was pin drop
silent it would have been impossible to hear what was being said on that
balcony.
Even more so when others closer, including actually on the balcony never
mention those words being spoken.
BTW Washington Irving was born in early April 1783 thus making him 67 in
1850 and he might have been a couple years older when he told his story to
to the author of the book.
There is another problem. The author of the book had been a minister
earlier in his life. Did that cause him to "color" things a bit? In
addition, if you look him up on the internet you will find comments about
him making things up and entering them in his writings. Not speculation he
did such but factually that he did such things.
ALONG WITH THIS:
Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in
:|news:5jq311pftbnjub61toe12pt996qkr6jri1@4ax.com:
:|
:|*snip*
:|
:|Thanks! I had my doubts about the Gettsyburg case, but your research on
:|G. Washington is excellent.
Most of the research was done by Mike Newdow. He had run across this as he
was doing research for his Inauguration prayer suit he filed. He had told
me awhile back that he had heard from The First Federal Congress Project
with regards to another question and they had told him then that there was
no contemporary source for the "So help me God" comment and that it was
probably false.
When I met with Mike, on February 5, 2005, here in Virginia Beach he set
me and two friends to work in the law library at Pat Robertson's Regent U
looking for more info.
Following up on, that after he left Virginia Beach early Feb 6, 2005, I
enlisted a friend who lives in Fla, a USAF Lt Col (Ret) who had far more
patience with online research than I do. I am quite at home with real books
and in real libraries, and while I am getting better with online research I
still get frustrated when I look for something it shows me 5000
possibilities. if it ain't in the first screen screw it. (grin)
Anyways, we proceeded to look for things to fill in some of the gaps in
Mike's data, things he hadn't found yet, or hadn't thought of yet, etc
We have filled in all the gaps except for one item we have to get our hands
on just to double check if Washington Irving was the real source or if the
author of that book invented it. .
As it stands right now we have newspaper articles of the day from several
newspapers, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Hartford, etc.
We have a book that was recommended by Marvin Kranz at the LOC as being
the definitive book on the topic. We have gathered the documents that were
cited in the portion of that book dealing with that day to personally check
them out.
We have copies of the essential pages from the original book making this
claim that was published in the 1850s as well as a map of NY and drawings
of the federal Hall etc
We have a copy of the report sent back to France written by the French
Minister who was on the Balcony. We have what was written by a women who
was on a roof top directly across from the Federal Hall.
:|What about his successors?
We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still
looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents
There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording
of what was said with regards to the oaths.
:|At what point did
:|this ad hoc addition to the Constitutionally mandated oath become a part
:|of the Innaugaral (I know I probably mispelled that :p ) tradition? The
:|apocraphyl story of Washington is still cited as the beginnings of this,
:|but your research raises doubts about that. Good work. I never even
:|considered the issue until I saw your post. Thanks.
***************************************************************************
It is not being anymore detailed than this for Usenet consumption since it
is going to be written up by M. Newdow and submitted for publication in a
law or historical journal. In addition it will be, in time placed, on the
following two web sites that I run:
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[some material is already there]
and
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
*********************************************************************
The above elicited this from him
:|> >:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
:|> >:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
Does anything else really need to be said?
:|
:|> The fact of the matter is, the myth is bad history. It is also a item
:|used
:|> by the Radical religious right and yes, there is a radical religious
:|right,
:|> Ultra conservatives, ultra libertarians as "proof" that church state
:|> separation was not intended by the founders.
:|
:|Yes, this is what you said. Michael asked you to back up
:|this statement with citations. If you're trying to prove
:|this is a problem that he should be worried about you need
:|to prove this is a problem he should be worried about.
What he actually said was this:
:|Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
:|lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
:|
:|Look, I'm not Christian, though I homeschool my
:|children and hang out on a newsgroup with many
:|homeschoolers who are Christian. I have zero vested
:|interest in the question of whether George Washington
:|did say "so help me God" or no at the time of the
:|First Inauguration.
:|However, you started out by asserting you were demolishing
:|some myth. That is, you were asserting that people
:|(out there, somewhere) widely believe that Washington
:|said this, even though historians long have known he didn't.
:|>:|OK, well, your lack of citation and specific reference to
:|historical documentation that Washington did or did not say it
:|doesn't exactly get me all shot up about your veracity,
:|but
:|I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to grant that Washington
:|in fact did not say the words "so help me God" at the first
:|inauguration. (Or rather, to be more specific, I am quite willing
:|to believe there is no comtemporary evidence that he did say
:|that.)
:| I mean, even if I swallow my natural reaction to this
:|("So what?"), the *other part* of what you said remains to
:|be established---namely, that people widely believe Washington
:|said that. Which people? Where? Where are these people who
:|widely believe that? Can you give examples of texts that
:|claim that Washington said it?
:| Maybe it's one of these things
:|that gets xeroxed from high-school history text to high-school
:|history text? Or maybe you think it's something the Christian
:|right believes---can you cite some tracts by Jerry Falwell or
:|somesuch showing that such believe it? Anyway, what is your
:|source for the claim in the first place that this it is
:|a myth (i.e. something lots of people actually believe) that
:|George Washington said those words? You *did say*, after all,
:|that historians have long known otherwise. Wouldn't the burden
:|of proof then be on you to show that there was any widespread
:|belief about it at all?
:|If you want a historical myth to debunk, I'll give you one:
********************************************************************
Rude crude patronizing, etc. Not a good way to approach another in order to
ask for additional information.
:|
:|Otherwise the only response called for is, "Oh, thanks for
:|mentioning that, I'll keep it in mind." You seem to want
:|more than an acknowledgement that our presidents might not
:|have said "So help me God."
You're a mind reader or a psychic? How about a winning lottery number?
If he felt he needed to reply at all the above you suggested was just fine.
Remember, he replied to my reply to another where a general overview of the
data we had was given.
:|(An ultra-libertarian is borderline anarchist so why you
:|think they would promote Church/State *non*separation is,
:|at the very least,.. interesting.)
:|
Really well let me put it to you this way.
While there maybe be many who would be quite different in the 10 years I
have been on Usenet, those who identify themselves as strongly libertarian
seem for some rally odd reason to be very hard to tell apart from the
radical religious right and the ultra conservatives, and that included the
area of church state. now maybe they are misidentifying themselves. I have
no way nor any desire to check them out, or even know how to go about such.
In addition to that, there are a fair number of so called "militia" groups
who profess to be libertarians and also claim to be right wing as far as
religion is concerned.
Radicals, extreme, yep, representative of all, nope, which is why I added
the extra words radical and ultra, etc. That separated them from those that
do not fit into that "mold"
:|> Thus it does become important to point out that that
:|> particular item is not historical fact.
:|
:|Only if you prove that your assertions about the threat
:|of ultra-conservatives and ultra-libertarians and the
:|radical right is an actual danger and not just your own
:|personal psychosis.
LOL, ahh it's not and your agreement to that isn't required in any manner
or form.
:|Truth for truth's sake? Yes. Truth for the sake of beating
:|back the barbarians at the gate? No. You've got to prove
:|the barbarians, and a couple of guys in hair-shirts don't
:|cut it.
Actually he didn't refer to those items at all. That appears to be the
horse you are riding.
However, I will offer you the following, not that it matters.
So will find scholarly as well as non scholarly sites among those listed
below
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200 for George Washington said "so help me god".
(0.42 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Washington++said+%22so+help+me+god%22&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B25251E7A
along with this which I don't expect you to agree with at all but your
agreement isn't rebuttal.
Got to
Hampton Roads Separation of Church and State Yahoo Group
HRSepCnS - Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
MESSAGES THAT PERTAIN TO RECONSTRUCTIONIST/DOMINIONS OR THEOCRATS
IN GENERAL (With a few other interesting items )
Msg #5 Christian Nation or Medieval Coup to Overturn Our Constitution? Or
Both?
Mag #41 DOMINION SERIES: #1. The Despoiling of America
Msg #42 dominion series #2. A Review of The Despoiling of America
Msg #68 DOMINION SERIES #3 RECONSTRUCTIONISTS info about
Msg #76 Theocracy vs. Democracy in America
Msg #101 Re: Scalia says judges should look to tradition;
Msg #103 Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception
Msg #105 Scalia's ideas/words
Msg #110 Re: Scalia's ideas/words
Msg #111 Re: Scalia's ideas/words
Msg #112 Religion on Trial: How Supreme Court Trends Threaten Freedom
of Conscience America
Msg #117 Justice Clarence Thomas with a score of 0 percent.
Msg #126 AU VA Chapter Reading Recommendation
Msg #128 NY Times: Battered Constitution
Msg #131 Sekulow v Newdow
Msg #132 Check Photo section
Msg #133 A day with Mike
Msg #138 The rapture index is one point below the critical threshold
Msg #139 "Our Godless Constitution" by Brooke Allen
Msg #147 Virginia House Passes Amendment Erasing Church-State Protections
Msg # 148 DOMINION SERIES: #4
Msg# 149 Dominion Series #5
Msg# 150 Dominion Series #6
Msg# 151 The 25 most influential Evangelicals in America
.
|
|
| User: "Michael S. Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: BREAKING NEWS |
17 Feb 2005 01:39:52 PM |
|
|
Thursday, the 17th of February, 2005
Julie:
Did he say he prefered to teach
"So help me God" and didn't care
if it was true or not?
bucky:
He said it was lame and nonsense.
No, in point of accurate historical record, I did
not. What I said was lame nonsense was your post
to misc.education.home-schooling.christian.
I still think it pretty obvious that your original
post had nothing whatsoever to do with education
or homeschooling or Christianity, for that matter,
so it was nonsense insofar as having to do with
any of those things, and it was lame insofar as
you provided no initial cites either to your claim
itself or to there being any such thing as widespread
belief in its opposite, the thing you were calling a
myth.
Julie:
I'm sure he teaches as accurate history as possible, and
I have never ever known him to be lax about caring about
facts and what is true or not true.
bucky:
Then I suggest you ask him why he put on a
insulting attacking hat and said
the following:
Actually, your post strikes me as
one of the most lame pieces of nonsense
I've seen on usenet in awhile.
Hmm. I was unaware that calling your lame piece of nonsense
lame and nonsensical was going to be insulting to you. I thought
either I would be wrong in my assertion that your piece was lame
and nonsensical, in which case I would be told wherein I was
wrong and how it was in fact of relevance either to education
or homeschooling or Christianity I suppose, or that maybe I
was right about it, in either of which cases, one of
us might go away enlightened a bit.
bucky:
I suggest you ask him what it was about the original post on this topic
that pushed his *** I have to reply and I have to do so in a insulting,
rude attack the messenger manner. ***
I can answer that. Simple. *You cross-posted your original post to
misc.education.home-school.christian.* Your post had nothing to do with
education, homeschooling, or Christianity. (In point of fact, your post
had little to do with separation of church and state, which makes it
particularly lame, but that is entirely beside the present point.)
bucky:
I made no inaccurate claims in my original post or in my follow up post
that he was actually replying to.
Oh, but you most certainly did. You claimed Washington speaking those
words was a *myth*. It isn't a myth, because not many people at
all believe that he spoke them, and because the standard
modern biography of Washington---Flexner's---clearly makes no
reference at all to Washington saying any such thing.
bucky:
You did note that he snipped all of that. There are reasons people snip
things. Ask him why he snipped it.
I snipped your irrelevant stuff because, as I made clear,
I wasn't arguing with your claim that Washington never said the
words. I was arguing with your claim that many people at all
believe he did say them. *That claim* you had not supported when I
responded to you. I was also arguing with the self-inportant puffery
of calling your post "BREAKING NEWS" and cross-posting it all across
every newsgroup in sight, when you apparently say nothing
that any reader of the standard biography of Washington wouldn't
already have known.
Mike Morris
(msmorris@netdirect.net)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: BREAKING NEWS |
21 Feb 2005 01:46:16 PM |
|
|
"Michael S. Morris" <msmorris@netdirect.net> wrote:
:|
:|
:| Thursday, the 17th of February, 2005
:|
:|
:|Julie:
:|
:| Did he say he prefered to teach
:| "So help me God" and didn't care
:|
:| if it was true or not?
:|bucky:
:| He said it was lame and nonsense.
:|
:|
:|No, in point of accurate historical record, I did
:|not. What I said was lame nonsense was your post
:|to misc.education.home-schooling.christian.
No in point of accuracy you said
Wednesday, the 16th of February, 2005
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Actually this wasn't hard to show it to be a
myth at all. [snip]
Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
Look, I'm not Christian, though I homeschool my
children and hang out on a newsgroup with many
homeschoolers who are Christian. I have zero vested
interest in the question of whether George Washington
did say "so help me God" or no at the time of the
First Inauguration.
However, you started out by asserting you were demolishing
some myth. That is, you were asserting that people
(out there, somewhere) widely believe that Washington
said this, even though historians long have known he didn't.
[AND SO ON]
LOOK AGAIN
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Actually this wasn't hard to show it to be a
myth at all. [snip]
Actually, your post strikes me as one of the most
lame pieces of nonsense I've seen on usenet in awhile.
You might have been thinking
:|No, in point of accurate historical record, I did
:|not. What I said was lame nonsense was your post
:|to misc.education.home-schooling.christian.
but that is not what you said.
This particular newsgroup is not a moderated newsgroup thus open to the
public participation.
I don't normally post to this newsgroup. I know how touchy and territorial
people are here.
I have been involved in this newsgroup (by invitation of a regular in this
group still is from time to time I think) in the past.
it ruffled a lot of feathers then too.
On the other hand, this is a newsgroup that is about education just as two
others that I include in my usual posting and replies,
alt.education,misc.education
Why, well because C&S topics apply to education, history, law, politics,
religion, etc.
This particular subject is related to history which is part of most
education programs
:|I still think it pretty obvious that your original
:|post had nothing whatsoever to do with education
You are incorrect. However, you have every right to believe what you want.
Regardless of your own personal opinions or biases on this subject I was
and am quite excited about this discovery. I am quite excited about being
involved in helping with the research and will be quite happy and excited
with being involved with the writing and publication of the article that
will follow.
The internet, Usenet, is a wonderful way to spread information and
knowledge.
Thus that was my motive.
Fact of the matter is, I originally posted the information to probably 30
or more newsgroups, all related, some more so than others to be sure, but
all related, all education, political, legal, history, religion newsgroups
Didn't really care who or how many or even if anyone replied back. But when
there were some replies back I recreated a couple newsgroup series from
those replies so that I could reply to them in some sort of compact order.
I replied in the same tone people replied to me.
After ten years on here I can be very polite to very rude and crude.
:|or homeschooling or Christianity, for that matter,
:|so it was nonsense insofar as having to do with
:|any of those things, and it was lame insofar as
:|you provided no initial cites either to your claim
:|itself or to there being any such thing as widespread
:|belief in its opposite, the thing you were calling a
:|myth.
Actually, I gave brief summation/outline which at least should have made
you ask question instead od insult. The summation indicate that we seemed
to know something that you and the guy I was replying to didn't
The next item I read of your included the bastardization of my screen name.
I doubt seriously that there is a valid, neutral reasonable explanation
for that
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: BREAKING NEWS |
17 Feb 2005 06:07:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still
looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents
There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording
of what was said with regards to the oaths.
The Phd thesis that I found in my answer to the other guy may have
some references:
160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric
of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State
University Library).] at 62.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: BREAKING NEWS |
21 Feb 2005 12:57:17 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still
:|>looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents
:|>
:|>There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
:|>the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording
:|>of what was said with regards to the oaths.
:|
:|The Phd thesis that I found in my answer to the other guy may have
:|some references:
:|160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric
:|of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
:|Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State
:|University Library).] at 62.
:|
Mike Newdow said this with regards to the above.
You said you had talked to him before and that you needed to call him again
that you thought his SHPG reference in the follwoing was based on common
opinion.
I have the dissertation, and I've gotten back to him on this. He simply
assumed the other reporters were accurate, and has no primary source
material.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: BREAKING NEWS |
22 Feb 2005 05:05:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote:
:| wrote:
:|>We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still
:|>looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents
:|>
:|>There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
:|>the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording
:|>of what was said with regards to the oaths.
:|
:|The Phd thesis that I found in my answer to the other guy may have
:|some references:
:|160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric
:|of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
:|Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State
:|University Library).] at 62.
Mike Newdow said this with regards to the above.
You said you had talked to him before and that you needed to call him again
that you thought his SHPG reference in the follwoing was based on common
opinion.
I have the dissertation, and I've gotten back to him on this. He simply
assumed the other reporters were accurate, and has no primary source
material.
So despite the other guy's claim about what historians actually do,
here is a guy whose PhD thesis specifically on the topic merely
repeated the myth without support and still managed to get his degree.
Makes me think Penn State is not a good place for graduate education
in history %^).
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: BREAKING NEWS |
22 Feb 2005 07:14:37 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
:|>>:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|>>:|>We know for a fact that Lincoln did not say "So help me God." We are still
:|>>:|>looking for primary source reports of the Oath taking by other Presidents
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>There are tons of primary source documentation on inauguration speeches but
:|>>:|>the cupboard is pretty bare with regards to publishing the actual wording
:|>>:|>of what was said with regards to the oaths.
:|>>:|
:|>>:|The Phd thesis that I found in my answer to the other guy may have
:|>>:|some references:
:|>>:|160. [Martin Jay] Medhurst, ["God Bless the President": The Rhetoric
:|>>:|of Inaugural Prayer (1980) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
:|>>:|Pennsylvania State University) (on file with the Pennsylvania State
:|>>:|University Library).] at 62.
:|>
:|>Mike Newdow said this with regards to the above.
:|>
:|>> You said you had talked to him before and that you needed to call him again
:|>> that you thought his SHPG reference in the follwoing was based on common
:|>> opinion.
:|>
:|>I have the dissertation, and I've gotten back to him on this. He simply
:|>assumed the other reporters were accurate, and has no primary source
:|>material.
:|
:|So despite the other guy's claim about what historians actually do,
:|here is a guy whose PhD thesis specifically on the topic merely
:|repeated the myth without support and still managed to get his degree.
:|
:|Makes me think Penn State is not a good place for graduate education
:|in history %^).
(Grin) I dunno I am Buckeye myself, from ohio and a fan of OSU but have
no knowledge of how good their history dept is.
I have finally gotten around to replying to the other fella. I have ben
running like crazy to various local libraries and putting things together
in order: chronological, things we, have things we sill have to find,
copy or at least verify, etc and wasn't doing the replying thingie.
But I am finding that even though he is dragging his feet every step of the
way and denying what we are telling him he is slowly coming around to
exactly what has been told him. More and more he is reluctantly admitting
things but yet still trying to say he is correct but that seems to be
getting weaker.
I suspect he will disappear from the discussion before he truly admits what
was originally posted was basically correct.
I just finished replying to two of his today while i wait for the places I
have to go today to open bit while having some repeated material also
contain brand new data harmful to his position.
It will be interesting to see if he replies to them and if so how he
handles that material.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
